Noco Company Inc. v. Shenzhen ChangXinYang Technology Co., Ltd.

Filing 15

Opinion and Order. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Related doc # 10 ) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Related doc # 14 ) is denied as moot. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 6/7/2018. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.
Plaintiff,
Vs.
SHENZHEN CHANGXINYANG
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.1:17CV2209
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF DKT # 10) by
Defendant Shenzhen ChangXinYang Technology Co., Ltd. For the following reasons, the
Court denies Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to File SurReply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Because the Court denies
Defendant’s Motion, it is not necessary to consider the additional case law contained in
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s patented car jump starting
device by selling three similar devices. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for Patent
Infringement.

Background Facts
In 2014, Plaintiff The NOCO Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) introduced a lithium-ion
battery-powered jump starter (the “Genius Boost”) on to the market. Compl. ¶ 11. On July 3,
2014, Plaintiff filed a utility patent application for the Genius Boost, which was granted and
issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015 (the “’015 Patent”) on April 14, 2015. Compl. ¶ 14. The
’015 Patent discloses and claims a handheld jump starter that includes a lithium-ion battery,
microcontroller and sensors to detect whether the device is properly connected to both
terminals of a vehicle battery:
Apparatus for jump starting a vehicle engine, comprising:
an internal power supply;
an output port having positive and negative polarity
outputs;
a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with
said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to
detect presence of a vehicle battery connected between said
positive and negative polarity outputs;
a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with said
positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect
polarity of a vehicle battery connected between said
positive and negative polarity outputs and to provide an
output signal indicating whether positive and negative
terminals of said vehicle battery are properly connected
with said positive and negative polarity outputs of said
output port;
a power switch connected between said internal power
supply and said output port; and
a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from
said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity
sensor, and to provide an output signal to said power
switch, such that said power switch is turned on to cause
2

said internal power supply to be connected to said output
port in response to signals from said sensors indicating the
presence of a vehicle battery at said output port and proper
polarity connection of positive and negative terminals of
said vehicle battery with said positive and negative polarity
outputs, and is not turned on when signals from said
sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery at
said output port or improper polarity connection of positive
and negative terminals of said vehicle battery with said
positive and negative polarity outputs.
Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Shenzhen ChangXinYang Technology Co., Ltd.
(“Defendant”) sold three similar devices (the “FlyHi Models”) which infringed the ’015
Patent:
Shenzhen ChangXinYang infringes the ’015 Patent in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271 by making , using, offering to sell and/or
importing at least the following models of compact lithium jump
starters sold under the brand FlyHi that have safety features
claimed in the ’015 Patent: 300A Peak 8000mAh Portable Car
Jump Starter, 500A Peak 13600mAh Portable Car Jump Starter
and 800A Peak 18000mAh Car Jump Starter.

Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that each of the FlyHi models meets each element of Claim 1 of
the ’015 Patent:
Each of the Infringing Models has a lithium battery pack
that acts as an internal power supply.
Each of the Infringing Models has positive and negative
polarity outputs on an output connector.
Each of the Infringing Models has an optocoupler sensor
that senses the presence of a vehicle battery: when a vehicle
battery is connected to the device’s terminals, voltage signals from
the device’s lithium battery pack are immediately raised and a
LED showing that a jump start in process is illuminated, indicating
that the optocoupler has sensed the presence of a battery.
3

Each of the Infringing Models has a sensor that outputs a
signal indicating whether a battery is connected in proper polarity;
for example, when a battery is connected to the device in a reverse
polarity state, the sensor causes a red LED indicating a reverse
connection to be illuminated.
Each of the Infringing Models has a transistor that controls
the device’s power switch.
Each of the Infringing Models has a microcontroller that
receives signals from the above-described sensors and processes
them such that the device is not turned on when the sensors
indicate that a battery is not connected to both outputs, or that the
connection is in a reverse polarity state.
Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Patent Infringement in Violation of 35 U.S.C. §
271.
Defendant’s Motion
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently and plausibly pleaded its Patent
Infringement claim. Instead, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has merely named three of
Defendant’s products, alleged that these products have the same “unnamed ‘safety features
claimed in the ’015 Patent,’” and alleged that these products meet each element of Plaintiff’s
Patent Infringement Claim in the same way. Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not provide
sufficient “evidence... by way of circuit schematics, reverse engineering reports, product
images, or any other source whatsoever,” and that Plaintiff merely parrots the elements of its
Patent Infringement Claim. Therefore, Defendant requests that the Court grant its Motion and
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Plaintiff’s Response
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss “erroneously seeks to elevate
4

Plaintiff’s... obligation to allege facts that, if proven, plausibly establish infringement into a
requirement that the Complaint supply actual evidence of infringement.” Plaintiff contends
that its Complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for Patent Infringement because it states which
features of the FlyHi Models infringed the ’015 Patent. Plaintiff does not have a duty to
provide “circuit schematics, reverse engineering reports, product images,” or any other
evidence of infringement at this stage but merely to allege facts that, if proven, establish a
claim for Patent Infringement. Therefore, since Plaintiff has alleged enough facts to put
Defendant on notice and since Plaintiff is not required to prove its case at the pleading stage,
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
“In reviewing a motion to dismiss, we construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). Factual
allegations contained in a complaint must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Twombly does not “require heightened fact
pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570. Dismissal is warranted if the complaint lacks an allegation as to a necessary
element of the claim raised. Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 899 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1990).
The United States Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), discussed
Twombly and provided additional analysis of the motion to dismiss standard:
In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to
dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because
5

they are no more than conclusion, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations. When there are well-plead factual allegations a court
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Id. at 1950.
When a court is presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it may consider the complaint
and any exhibits attached thereto, public records, items appearing in the record of the case and
exhibits attached to defendant’s motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the
complaint and are central to the claims contained therein. See Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259
F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001).
Has Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded its Patent Infringement Claim?
In order to state a claim for Patent Infringement, Plaintiff must plead facts to plausibly
allege that Defendant “without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention
during the term of the patent therefor.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2018). Until December 1, 2015,
in stating a claim for direct patent infringement, it was sufficient to comply with Form 18 of
the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which required only the
following elements to be present in the complaint:
(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff
owns the patent; (3) a statement that defendant has been infringing
the patent by ‘making, selling, and using [the device] embodying
the patent’; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the
defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for an
injunction and damages.
Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC, No. 16-CV-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407 at *1

6

(N.D.Cal. May 26, 2017). However, on December 1, 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure were amended to abrogate Rule 84 and thus, the Appendix of Forms, including
Form 18. Id. at *2. “Since this change, the majority of district courts have assessed the
sufficiency of claims for direct patent infringement under the standard set forth in Twombly
and Iqbal.” Id. Therefore, it is now “incumbent on a plaintiff to provide a readable
document that plausibly alleges infringement.” SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., No. 1:16-CV00830-RGA (D.Del. June 21, 2017) (Mot. Dismiss Ex. A).
“[T]o plausibly state a claim for patent infringement... the complaint [must] relate its
factual allegations to an asserted claim of the patent.” SIPCO, Mot. Dismiss Ex. A. In
SIPCO, the plaintiff filed a complaint which “ma[de] no attempt to connect anything in the
patent claims to anything about any of the accused products.” Id. While the plaintiff did
describe the accused products, the plaintiff failed to provide any detail comprehensible by the
court which indicated what specific components of the accused product violated each
element of the patent. See id.
In order to fulfill the Twombly/Iqbal requirements, the complaint may “identif[y]
what it is in the accused product that is said to amount to [each element of the patent]...
and/or plea[d] facts that explain why it is likely that the accused product has something that
could be considered [each element].” North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No.
1:17-506-LPS-CJB (D.Del. Nov. 16, 2017) (Mot. Dismiss Ex. B). In North Star, the
plaintiff’s patent infringement complaint merely “parroted back the language of these claim
elements and... stated that the accused product is comprised of such elements,” without
alleging any additional facts or reasoning behind these assertions. Id. As a result, the court

7

dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Id.
Here, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint does little more than those at issue
in SIPCO and North Star and thus, should be dismissed. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint
contains significantly more detail than the complaints at issue in those cases. Unlike the
plaintiff in SIPCO, Plaintiff has “relate[d] its factual allegations to an asserted claim of the
patent” by explicitly pairing each allegation with the patent element it is said to fulfill. Mot.
Dismiss Ex. A. For example, the third element of the ’015 Patent recites “a vehicle battery
isolation sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity outputs,
configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and
negative polarity outputs.” Compl. ¶ 17. In connection with this element, Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges:
Each of the Infringing Models has an optocoupler sensor that
senses the presence of a vehicle battery: when a vehicle battery is
connected to the device’s terminals, voltage signals from the
device’s lithium battery pack are immediately raised and a LED
showing that a jump start in process is illuminated, indicating that
the optocoupler has sensed the presence of a battery.
Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff’s allegations for other claim elements are similar. See Compl. ¶ 19.
Plaintiff uses language connecting each allegation to a specific element of the ’015 Patent
(for example, “vehicle battery isolation sensor” from the ’015 Patent and “sensor that senses
the presence of a vehicle battery” from the allegations). Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19. Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s Complaint orders its allegations in the same way that the elements of the ’015
Patent are ordered, making it obvious which allegations Plaintiff means to pair with each
element of the ’015 Patent. Therefore, Plaintiff has met its burden of relating its allegations
to specific elements of the ’015 Patent.
8

Defendant further contends that Plaintiff has merely “parrot[ed] back the language of
these claim elements and... stat[ed] that the accused product is comprised of such elements,”
as the plaintiff in North Star did. Mot. Dismiss Ex. B. However, Plaintiff has done
considerably more than the plaintiff in North Star. Plaintiff has met its burden of
“identifying what it is in the accused product that is said to amount to [each element of the
patent]... and/or pleading facts that explain why it is likely that the accused product has
something that could be considered [each element].” Id. Using the same example from
above, it is clear that Plaintiff has not merely parroted the language of the ’015 Patent but
rather added details which explain why it is likely that the FlyHi Models infringed the ’015
Patent. Rather than simply stating that the FlyHi Models contain “a vehicle battery isolation
sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to
detect presence of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity
outputs,” Plaintiff has provided additional facts about the FlyHi Models to support its
assertion; namely, Plaintiff states that the FlyHi Models contain an LED which is illuminated
when a vehicle battery is connected and a jump start is in progress. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19. These
facts provide support for Plaintiff’s allegation that the FlyHi Models contain “a vehicle
battery isolation sensor... configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery,” as protected by
the ’015 Patent, since the illumination of an LED may plausibly indicate the presence of a
sensor of the type protected by the ’015 Patent. Compl. ¶ 17.
The third element of Plaintiff’s claim is used as an example; all of the other elements
also meet Plaintiff’s burden. While it is true that Plaintiff has provided more detail in
support of some allegations than others, Plaintiff has expressly connected each accusation to

9

a specific claim in the ’015 Patent as required by SIPCO, and has provided some explanation
for why it is likely that the FlyHi Models infringed each element of the ’015 Patent, as
required by North Star. North Star seems to recognize that some allegations require more
explanation than others. See Mot. Dismiss Ex. B (“The Court can imagine that as to some
types of straightforward apparatus claims, for example, simply setting out what the patent
claims require and then reproducing a picture of an accused product (perhaps with a little
explanation of what is depicted) might be all that is needed. As to other apparatus claims,
such as those implicating more complicated technology like that at issue [in North Star],
more is likely going to be necessary.”).
Therefore, the Court finds that even those allegations which are relatively
straightforward and short have been sufficiently pleaded. For example, for the first element
of the ’015 Patent (“an internal power supply”), Plaintiff simply states that each of the FlyHi
Models “has a lithium battery pack that acts as an internal power supply.” Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19.
However, this element, is not insufficiently plead simply because Plaintiff has only included
one sentence about it. Id. Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a fact (that the FlyHi Models
“[have] lithium battery pack[s]”) which fulfills the first element of the ’015 Patent (“an
internal power supply”). Id. Therefore, the Court finds that this element, as well as the rest
of the elements in Plaintiff’s Complaint, has been sufficiently pleaded.
Defendant further implies that Plaintiff has a duty to provide “evidence that... such
elements exist in any of the accused FlyHi products by way of circuit schematics, reverse
engineering reports, product images, or any other source.” Mot. Dismiss at 4. However,
North Star specifically states that the plaintiff’s burden at the pleading stage “may not

10

necessarily require provision of circuit schematics, reverse engineering reports, product
images, data sheets and tear down reports.” (Internal quotations omitted). Mot. Dismiss Ex.
B. Plaintiff’s burden may instead “simply require some factual explanation for what it is
about the product that leads Plaintiff to think it has the required elements.” Id. As discussed
above, Plaintiff’s Complaint has met this burden. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss.
Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint groups together three
“[c]ompletely [d]ifferent [p]roducts... based on unidentified ‘safety features claimed in the
’015 Patent.’” However, it appears from the Complaint that the three FlyHi Models are, in
essence, versions of the same product, differing only in some of their technical
specifications. Furthermore, Plaintiff has claimed specific facts regarding all three products
that plausibly infringe each element of the ’015 Patent. Taking these allegations as true, it
appears that each element infringes the ’015 Patent in the same way(s). There is no reason
for Plaintiff to separately allege the same facts for each FlyHi Model. Furthermore,
Defendant has failed to produce any authority that holds that such grouping undermines an
otherwise sufficiently pleaded complaint.
Therefore, for the foregoing reason, the Court denies Defendant Shenzhen
ChangXinYang Technology Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF DKT # 10). Because the
Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that it is
unnecessary to consider the material contained in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File SurReply. Thus, the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (ECF DKT # 14) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: June 7, 2018

s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge

12